178 comments:

I lived in San Francisco during the outbreak of the AIDS epidemic. Some years later, I lived in Greenwich Village during the height of the epidemic.

The cause of the AIDS epidemic was gay men coming out of the closet in droves. The lesson was clear to me. Gay men need to be in the closet for their own good and for the health of the society at large.

Tens of millions of died in this epidemic caused by the irresponsible behavior of gay men. Billions have been poured into healthcare.

Why in the fuck have we concluded that mainstreaming gays is the answer? This is the craziest, most idiotic thing I've witnessed in my lifetime. The traditional proscriptions against gays are the best thing for all of us... including gays.

And, not incidentally.... the great propaganda campaign insisting that gays died en masse as the result of violence perpetrated by straight men is the most damnable lie I've ever heard. Gays died en masse as a result of their own behavior.

It's emblematic of the past several decade that we've decided to make straight men, particularly white men, the scapegoats for this.

As a recently retired senior enlisted Marine (enlisted, the people who get to make the brass's totally super awesome ideas work), I just can't get past the berthing issue:

- Can't room men and women together for obvious reasons

- Can't room gay men together for obvious reasons

- Can't room lesbians together for obvious reasons

The kind of shit officers will come up with is:

Mass e-mail:

From: Battalion Commander

To: Company Commanders, Battalion Staff Officers

Cc: Battalion SgtMaj

Subj: IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW DOD POLICY REGARDING HOMOSEXUALS

Ref: MARADMIN 334/10

Please confer with your senior enlisted on the best way to approach the berthing issue regarding our homosexual servicemembers and formulate a plan on how best to accomplish this.

I want recommendations at the Battalion meeting at 1300 tomorrow.

-CO

Down at the Company office:

Company CO (Some fucking Captain): "Well, find out which hetero Marines are ok with rooming with gay Marines."

Company Gunny: "Sir, are you fucking serious? You want me to sit down with everyone in the company and interview them about what their rooming preferences are? You realize we're going to have to stand-down to get this done in under a week."

Company CO: "Well, we can't stand-down anytime soon because of the exercise coming up. Just shoot it out to the Platoon Leaders and OICs."

Company Gunny: "Sir, you remember how long it took us to find out who wanted chicken, beef or the vegetarian plates for the Birthday Ball when we did it that way?"

Company Gunny: "What about our detachments that are out in the field? What about the range detail? This is firing week. We have 5 in the Sergeant's Course right now, Corporal's Course started last week, then we have the night shift..."

Company CO: "Damnit Gunny, I hate it when you do that shit."

Company Gunny: "What, remind you where your people are?

Company CO: "Just shut up a sec."

Company Gunny: "Ok Sir."

Company CO: "Ok, well you're just going to have to get on the phone or make a visit down to each shop and personally ask."

Company Gunny: "Are you fu... Look sir, weren't you at the PME last week where they told us the new DoD policy was that that info now falls in PII and you can't ask them that?"

Company CO: "How is that PII?"

Company Gunny: "Fuck if I know, but it's in the policy letter."

Company CO: "Well we have to find out somehow. Just ask and make a roster of what Marines' preferences are. Then just assign rooms accordingly."

Company Gunny: "Make a roster? Are you fu..."

Company CO: "Yes."

Company Gunny: "What are you gonna do, give the gay Marines their own rooms?"

Company CO: "We might have to."

Company Gunny: "Look Sir, the corporals are gonna be pissed with some lance corporal butt rustler...

Company CO: "You can't say that!"

Company Gunny: "I know, I was actually *at* the PME at the theater. Saw it on powerpoint and all. Do you even know where the theater is, sir?

The same concerns were raised about race when the armed forces were integrated. What needs to be pointed out is that Democrats have overwhelmingly voted to get rid of ''Don't Ask Don't Tell'' while Republicans have overwhelmingly voted to keep discriminating. Ann, who is the party of freedom?

Company Gunny: "Anyway, when the Marines who are doubling up find out the pole-smokers are..."

Company CO: "Gunny..."

Company Gunny: "...getting their own rooms, they're gonna be pissed. I'll send them to see you and have you explain it to 'em."

Company CO: "That won't be necessary Gunny. I see your point."

Company Gunny: "How are you going to handle when they get promoted? What are you going to do when you realize we're going to need more rooms? The BEQ is already at 95% occupancy. You gonna give them BAH Own-right?"

Company CO: "Well of course we'll give them BAH."

Company Gunny: "Have you forgotten that the Comptroller's office is cracking down on BAH Own-right justifications? That's not gonna fly, sir."

Company CO: "Look Gunny, you're just an idea-killer. I want you to read this book. It's called 'Who Moved My Cheese' and it..."

Company Gunny: "Sir, don't peddle that crap you guys are getting from your business management seminars that pass for officer PMEs these days. You know what, ever heard of a "bad idea"? A bad idea needs to be killed. That's what experience is for - to kill bad ideas. So yeah, I'm an idea killer. I'm also a Company Gunny, which means I'm not going to see 1stSgt or MSgt. And with these guys training to go on their 3rd dployment in as many years where they're going to be shot at, I don't want them tired and pissed off from dealing with bullshit back stateside and neither should you, sir."

Company CO: "Goddamnit Gunny, just make it work! I'm gonna go PT."

Company Gunny: "I'm gonna go see the SgtMaj."

Company CO: "Goddamnit Gunny. Fuck!"

****

So I'm basically going to get fired as the Company Gunny because I'm going to tell my Battalion CO (because I will have just told my Company CO) to figure this shit out himself.

"The number of incidents against gays in the military is going to increase."

That's kinda the whole point.

Obama hates gay people, so repealing DADT is appealing to him as this will result in more incidents against gays. That will teach gays that it's not really a good idea to be gay. It's easier to just be straight.

So, we must focus on this extremely important issue for that 2% of our society that wants to fuck one another in the ass!

This is the stark raving mad, exponential shit head, spoiled brat obsession of a society that has forgotten how to deal with reality.

There is no civil rights issue here. There is a simple sanity issue here, and we're failing.

So, idiots... Who will be the first to proclaim that anybody who sees the insanity of the bullshit is just a closet queer? That's one of the first lessons of Rhetoric 101. C'mon teacher's pets! We're waiting for your words of wisdom.

"Pile on, idiots! Convince me that I didn't live through this madness."

Oh, I'm not going to try to convince you that you didn't "live through that madness", I'm merely going to state that you interpreted it like a complete, drooling moron. I have no desire to "convince" you of anything.

I know that you're positively stiff with excitement at the prospect of a bunch of gay men "piling on" you, but I'm afraid I can't help you consummate your little fantasy as I'm already got my own ravishingly handsome piling companion.

Unfortunately, in this day and age of sexual harrassment lawsuits, what will happen when some soldier feels like his showermate drops the soap way too often? How many lawsuits will straights file against out-of-the-closet gays who openly proposition them?

The biggest problem is that the Military is pretty bi-polar about things like this.

They will go from DADT one day to:

- Open Gay relationships are normal. - Anybody who isn't fully on board with that is the one who's got a problem- Manditory Gay awareness classes on the training schedule- factoring in support for command awareness programs into OER/EERs- positive consideration for gays on promotion boards, because the activists tell us that 20% of the population is gay and we only have 10% of the xx who are gay, so we need to promote some more- Service Academy preferences, etc

Everything, and I mean everything in the military ought to be subordinate to the twin gods of readiness and retention.

Repealing DADT is all about personal freedom and rights. Not.The.Same.Thing.

Does anybody really think that 5 years after repealing DADT we are going to have more Gays enlisting than straights opting out?

Or that morale and readiness in our combat units is going to be higher or lower?

There are so many perks to being, or pretending to be homo that many men are being dragged into the hetero closet.

If Palladin lives on the coast and is in any number of trendy professions, he may b e a closet hetero. Or, he may be sucking dick for to get a leg up in his industry.

For anybody who doesn't think that people will twist their own sexuality in any number of incredible ways to gain public approbation... well, you haven't lived in the midst of the leftist cults of San Francisco and NYC.

So, what about it Palladin? Sure you're not taking it up the ass just to be fashionable? Sure you're not sucking cock to advance in your profession? Do you have any idea who you are, or are you just a frightened, stupid kid trying to win approval from a world of idiots?

It's funny how gay-haters (I detest the misnomer "homophobe") so quickly and easily and with such manifest joy summon up graphic descriptions of homosexual practices. It's like it's all they think about...

"If you are gay or hetero....just shut up about your sexuality and do your damned job. No one wants to know."

If you are gay or hetero....just shut up about your sexuality and do your damned job. No one wants to know.

I agree with that.But the way things are right now, gay people are at risk (via DADT) if they mention their partner or spouse as their partner or spouse. Or if they have a photo of their partner.Well, gay people in the military miss their loved ones in the exact same way straight people do, and only gay people have to pretend they don't even exist.So I say, get rid of DADT.

But the wide-stance snickerers don't get to act like the military is full of red-necks for being hesitant about it.

I am not opposed to Gays on any level, but the issue in the military's DADT policy is favoritism in promotions and easy duty assignments for the Officers' latest lovers. The current policy seems like an unfair nuisance to 5% of the service men and women,but replacing that with more unfairness to the other 95% may embitter that unfavored 95%, or maybe not given current acceptance of the gay lifestyle. IMO, Military life is mostly not the Hollywood image of one big Band of Brothers needing each other to survive in combat. There remains an old truism that when unnecessary problems start happening then "cherchez la femme". I expect that phrase will take on a whole new meaning among the military.

I'm all for keeping the workplace professional, but it's unfair in a military setting because you're with your co-workers 24/7. The current policy allows someone to be disciplined (or even discharged) if they let slip something personal even during their off-hours. Why expect gay service members to wall off their life even in social settings when the same is not expected of straight people? The policy should be "Don't Care, Just Do Your Job".

As soon as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," is repealed, men in the armed forces will be in the same position straight men now face in the employment market.

The only way out of the bottom rung of the ladder status in the quota system for a white men is to be (or pretend to be) gay.

You will be obliged to suck cock is you want a job. The gay male community has always been fascist. In the future, it will have the ability to impose its fascist agenda everywhere.

And EnigmatiCore jumps in with the traditional Rhetoric 101 argument... noticing the fascist agenda of the gay community is proof of "repressed feelings."

The gay bathhouses in SF and NYC were the breeding grounds of AIDS. I'd try to be a fucking idiot like you and ignore it, but I can't. Co-workers would arrive at work every morning bragging that they'd done a dozen guys the night before.

They're all dead. You can pretend not to notice. I saw it with my own lying eyes.

Gay men belong in the closet for their own good and for the good of the general society. Gay men, once out of the closet, don't have the sense not to commit mass suicide.

The current policy allows someone to be disciplined (or even discharged) if they let slip something personal even during their off-hours. Why expect gay service members to wall off their life even in social settings when the same is not expected of straight people? The policy should be "Don't Care, Just Do Your Job".

Exactly.And the policy is supposed to be no fraternization. Period.So if a woman feels she's being hit on by a man or a woman, she should be able to report them. Same with men.

Palladian said...Because nothing terrifies a Marine like having a gay person nearby!

I don't think there's an issue when you're working in a normal job in which your private sphere is separate. In the military it's different and it can create morale problems, just as the increasing infusion of women into the services creates all sorts of problems. In America today, we figure that as long as we ignore the concerns of the straight white men, everything will go along swimmingly. They don't count.

Women on submarines--why not? Who cares how impractical it is, and how enormously expensive it is to completely reconfigure them? Can't deny women the right to serve on a submarine, can we? We're the richest country in the world, we can afford to do as many pointless, incredibly expensive things as we want.

It seems that we've decided that our military's main purpose is to serve as the cutting edge of liberal social experimentation. Since we don't expect to have to fight any real wars anymore, it apparently doesn't matter if we destroy it in the process.

In the arts and media communities of NYC and LA and SF, you almost have to be gay to get a job.

The quota system place white men on the shit end of the stick at the bottom of the quota system.

The only way out for white men who want to work in a wide variety of professions is to either be gay or pretend to be gay.

One "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," is repealed, gays will ascend to the second step of the quota ladder, just below blacks.

And, so straight men in the military will face the same problem: suck dick or you'll lose your job, or you won't get promoted.

The gay community is innately fascist. Don't believe these arguments about civil rights. Remember, if you can clear all that propaganda garbage out of your head, the gay male community is innately, savagely fascist.

"How many men proposition women in the military? What we really need to do is ban straight men from the military."

Ummm, a lot. That's why it's not ideal to have women in close-quarters situations with their mail counter-parts. Ever hear of Tailhook? How's about the epidemic of women soldiers and sailors getting pregnant while they are deployed?

So, instead of solving that problem, we're going to introduce a new wrinkle. Brilliant.

"Hi, my name's Eric Massa and as your commanding officer, I command you to tickle me until I scream"

I'm not going to get too into what shoutingthomas is shouting about but I will say this in his defense... I once knew of a man who became the very powerful head of a company at a very young age because he was black, gay and married to his partner (in Massachusetts). Despite his ineptitude he could NOT be fired for those very reasons.

Now, contra-ST, he wasn't pretending to be gay. It did not hurt him though as some people would have you believe.

"How can you completely divorce yourself from your personal life ALL the time. In private industry, we can. In a military 24/7 setting, I think it is impossible."

I don't think that people who haven't been in the military (and I'm excluding even dependents, although they might have a bit of an idea) understand just how invasive to your personal life the whole thing is. This is even when you've got a desk job, day shift, with weekends off, which few active military do.

I don't know that I can give examples because it's not individual things so much as it's everything together.

The gay person (lesbian?) interviewed in the article who says that DADT provides some protections is very right. DADT allows this part of people's personal lives to be officially ignored. That is a sweet gift. It should, perhaps, be repealed, but I am convinced that those who want it repealed have no clue at all what that means.

The little scenario passed on by GMay isn't hyperbole. I've said several times lately that the most likely result of repeal will be that gays *must* declare their sexuality and then they will be limited in assignments (the same way that women are limited to assignments) to facilities that are able to meet their privacy needs. Stateside and perhaps the largest overseas bases and only jobs and training that do not require deployment.

I know I've also mentioned this before but in theater in war in Iraq the rules about how and where women were allowed to sleep overrode safety and security concerns *officially*... and the single largest death event of female soldiers was the direct result.

I haven't heard that the policy ever changed because of that. I can see the shape of the sorts of service/cultural changes that ought to solve that problem but anyone who thinks they're simple changes is a ass.

Most gays serve in the rear area where things are mostly FUBR anyways. So, it might not matter. However, once you get into the combat arms, where men are men, gays will still have to be in a don't tell mode. Now, all you rear area mother fuckers can continue to discuss this issue.

@Palladian, I think that there will be problems, but I don't know what they are. I suspect that you are more sanguine about the results of dropping DADT than is justified.

I can confidently predict that Democrats and their allies in the MSM will immediately conclude that all of the problems are due to those dirty, rotten heteros, and that's going to be one of the problems.

Forty years ago Democrats (minus conservative Dems) passed civil rights laws that transformed America and brought us closer to our nation's ideals. They did so with the help of many liberal Republicans.

This past week an overwhelming majority of Democrats again stood up for freedom and equality with only a very small handful of conservative Democrats voting no. Unlike forty years ago an overwhelming number of Republicans chose to desperately hang onto their wedge issue and voted NO.

Ten years from now the American people with find a military and society were gays are afforded the full rights shared by their fellow citizens. We will be a better country for this. It will also be crystal clear that Democrats provided the leadership to reach that point while Republicans were on the wrong side of freedom and history.

Presumably, this is Slobbering Barney's gift to the nation, along with Fannie and Freddie and much of the subprime mortgage mess.

Some say it will be the end of the volunteer military. If so, The Zero can be justified in bringing back the peacetime draft and thus cut unemployment (it worked for FDR, unemployment went from 15 to 5% in 2 years)(of course, he then had to fight a global war).

Doesn't matter what Congress does, this is an Executive Branch matter and was instituted by one William Jefferson Blyth III. I do think NewHam is right about The Zero. Congress is doing this to pander to as many constituencies as possible in advance of November. They can pass some legislation, but The Zero doesn't necessarily have to implement it, as we've seen with ICE's attitude toward deporting illegals apprehended in AZ.

Jake said...

New Ham, I guess President Truman hated black people in your fantasy world. Right?

The black guy in the next rack wasn't going to try to have sex with his bunkie.

PS HST did not integrate the military. One battalion of black infantry and one battery of black artillery is not integration. It is what sharecropping and Jim Crow were to slavery.

Forty years ago Democrats (minus conservative Dems) passed civil rights laws that transformed America and brought us closer to our nation's ideals. They did so with the help of many liberal Republicans.

More utter fucking bullshit.

Forty years ago, blacks burned down their own home towns in Newark, Detroit, and South Chicago. The outcome of the civil rights era is far more problematic than you've pictured.

Newark, Detroit and South Chicago are even worse shitholes than they were prior to the civil rights era. Many parts of those cities have never been rebuilt.

More blacks are in jail. More blacks are born out of wedlock.

A majority of the black community has now become dependents of the Democratic Party, which buys their votes with brides of welfare and quota promises. The result is a completely corrupted government so depending on this blend of bribery and vote fraud that it is collapsing of its own weight.

Jim Crow had to end. Comparing the status of gays to blacks under Jim Crow is the sorriest fucking spoiled brat argument in existence. Shame on you, asshole, for employing it.

The end of Jim Crow has been a signal disaster for most of the black community.

The strategy of the Democratic Party: bribes for black votes is insanely racist and bizarrely destructive.

Paul, The Dill Sgt and shoutingthomas are all dead on tgt here. People should visit the various milblogs and sample the views of both active duty and ex/retired military on this subject. The vast majority believe it will uniformly be an unmitigated disaster--a corrosive, caustic cancerous growth that, like the introduction of women in line units has affected morale, retention and combat effectiveness.

I'm waiting for A SINGLE, EXTANT study which proports to show that the introduction of EITHER gays OR women has/will improve the combat effectiveness of the armed services ONE WHIT! OTHO, their are numerous studies--many now with over a decade of longitudinal data--which demonstrate EXACTLY the opposite--varying only in the amt of degradation in overall effectiveness/readiness of between 5-20% while at the same time engendering great financial budgetary costs for housing/berthing, etc. Aircraft ejection-seats are having to be re-designed, (again at great cost using already scarce dollars) for another example, as the spines of women pilots are too fragile to withstand the sudden impact of the initial explosive jolt resulting in abnormally high incidence of spinal fractures.

What really provides the oxygen which fans the flames of the movement to force the armed services to accept women and gays is, as Paul noted, the belief that we will never again be in the sort of war in which we will be in serious danger of truly losing--thus combat effectiveness is seen as secondary to the advancement of the "progressive" societal agenda. And if that means we buy fewer guns and bombs and ships--the sort of things without which enough of one loses wars--in order to reconfigure facilities to accommodate gays and women, so be it.

During the 1980's and 1990's the neighborhood got gentrified. Most of the old timers who owned saloons sold out and people came from Manhattan and opened "lounges" with couches and candles and mixed drinks like cosmopolitans. Yes the bar scene became more cosmopolitan.

Anyhoo one day I am standing in this bar on Atlantic Avenue having a shot and a beer like I usually do. This joint back in the day had sawdust on the floor and Dean Martin on the jukebox. Now it was a lounge with everyone except me drinking appletini's and candles all over the freakin place. This neighborhood mook named Augie walks in and drops his briefcase on the floor and goes "Hey watch my bag I gotz to go take a leak.' So the bartender comes over to me and she says "Hey am I gonna have any trouble with this guy. We don't like neighborhood guys in here. They don't mix too well with our clientele?" "Don't worry about it, he's harmless. Pour him a Dewars and water and put it on my tab. It will be fine."

So Augie comes back from the bathroom, picks up his drink and then looks up and down the bar. He goes to me "Jesus Christ there are a lot of fucking faggots in here." The bartender almost shits her pants. I go to him "Hey Augie relax. Trust me they ain't interested in you. Let them do their own thing and you do yours. It shouldn't bother you so much. Cause if it does then maybe you are the one with the problem you know what I am talking about. Now drink you drink and shadup."

He thinks about it for a minute and goes "Your right. How about those fuckin Mets. Goddamn Piazza struck out with the bases loaded."

My husband has always said he'd much rather have a gay man on his team than a woman. I don't think that's a radically out there attitude within the confines of our little space in the military. Can't speak for the armed forces as a whole, but my inclination is there's a lot more smoke than fire about the whole issue.

No offense to some of the older prior service commenters here, but the military tends to skew young. I would venture to say that the general attitude of the younger generation towards gay people, gay issues, etc... is very, very different from that of older generations.

I was in a combat arm and never had to deal with tbe consequences of a "co-ed" army; I don't think relating anectotal evidence from my fellow soldiers will shed a lot of light on the issue with respect to men-women.

As several commenters have pointed out the UCMJ, I believe, has the necessary disciplinary standards to cover gay-gay or gay-straight issues.

I simply don't know what the effect of DADT is on unit cohesion. Unit cohesion is a damn hard thing to measure anyway. If DADT is eliminated, I would forsee some of the internal consequences drill sgt mentions because thats the way the military works; will create more administrative barriers.

My bottom line:I am in favor of eliminating DADT (for libertarian reasons) and then evaluate the program from that point on. At this point everyone can say what might happen; no one knows what will happen.

It it amusing to see "Jake" keep repeating the same thought, over and over; is that a recording?

Sexual identity is not the same as racial identity. It does take some ability to reflect and enter into abstract thought, somewhat unconstrained from cant, to appreciate this fact.

A lot of this is the fruit of rebelling against the notion of the normal. We are a narcissistic, hold-my-hand culture, where if you say something is not normal, the tissues come out, boo-hoo, you hurt my feelings, where's the nearest class-action lawyer?

But society needs norms. Laws are norms; moral imperatives are norms. Definitions--this is a dog, this is not a god--are norms. Ow, so constraining! That's reality, sorry.

Heterosexuality is the norm. Pretending that is not the case leads to all manner of new problems that have to be dealt with.

If and when "don't ask" is repealed, a new normal will replace the old, and--as someone predicted above--it will become a problem that anyone professes that homosexual behavior is sinful.

And all those who were unhappy about the old oppression, will then speak up to protest the new?

jennifer--as an old colonel blimp type (enlisted in 1961 and retired in 1986) I take your point. I frankly have no idea what today's soldiers think. That said, I am extraordinarily impressed by their demonstrated ability. These soldiers carry more on their back into combat that my worst day in Ranger School. And the level of technology they deal with is phenomenal.

No Fr Martin, I will not be protesting for those who can no longer use the State to oppress others and use government to further their hate and need to discriminate. Old Jim Crow will just have to learn to live in a more fair and equal society.

We still have unreconstructed confederates and I am sure we will still continue to have haters of gays.

I think there's a huge difference between treating repeal of DADT as a new civil right to serve "openly," as opposed to a privilege to disclose your homosexual orientation without it being an dischargable offense.

"If and when "don't ask" is repealed, a new normal will replace the old, and--as someone predicted above--it will become a problem that anyone professes that homosexual behavior is sinful."

I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that the people who will be prosecuted for voicing their belief that homosexuality is sinful will be Christian crackers from the south. They make better cases from a PR perspective.

Of course, this will happen while others in uniform continue to voice their own peculiar opinions without reproach. 'Cause you can't go prosecutin' SOME religious people.

As General Casey said in the wake of the Hasan massacre, "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."

I would give Obama a point for smarts if his speech when DADT was ended mentioned that the new policy was Do Your Job. You are not in the Armed Forces to find a sexual partner, whether you -- or your partner -- is male or female. You are there to do a job. Do it.

Fr Martin,Racist and gay haters can continue to hold to their beliefs. They can just not continue to use the State to carry out policies against individuals they personally discriminate against. If clinging to your confederate since of victimhood makes you feel better then who am I to dissuade you.

ShoutThomas, I try not to engage naives and fools. So, I have nothing more to say to you except enjoy the day.

Boy, I hate it when I end up on the left of many, if not most, Althouse commenters.

And this is twice in one week: First, many commenters here who I respect defended that idiot Rand Paul when he all-but-said that he'd never have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Now this.

I can see the point that there are logistical challenges involved in quartering people; but I'm not sure if it's really that insurmountable. From what I've heard and read, most gay men prefer other gay men. So I sort of doubt that quartering gay men with hetero men will cause them to start fucking like bunnies (which would happen were you to berth hetero men with hetero women).

And I don't see how reducing the size of the pool from which our military can recruit, by excluding gays, would in any way enhance preparedness. There are probably some gay people out there that shoot pretty well. Probably even more that could excel at the technical tasks required in today's military (flying UAVs, using or maintaining sophisticated communications equipment, etc.)

I doubt that we'd lose that many recruits because DADT is gone. Anyone with the courage and commitment to join and go to hellholes like Afghanistan and Iraq probably won't be dissuaded by some fear of buggery.

And shoutingthomas, I don't know where you live, but I've never encountered this all-powerful gay Mafia which you seem to think controls us all like some puppet master. And you keep mentioning quotas: I'm sorry, but is there some critical percentage of gays that I'm supposed to be hiring? I didn't even know that I was allowed to ask employees about such things. Apparently I'm obliged to.

For those of you familiar with the laws that govern the military, you know that service members are afforded less rights (limitations on 1st/5th/6th amendments, etc.) than civilians. This has been justified time and again because the military is a "society apart." Parker v. Levy, check it out. There is simply no equating it to a civilian workplace, and we shouldn't try to make it into one.

The most bothersome part of this debate is that the advocates for repeal REFUSE to acknowledge the significant issues that need to be addressed in order for this to work. Once they validate that this will be problematic for some time, then I might listen to what they have to say. For the record, responding to this request with "homophobe!" will not be considered honest validation of the issues.

As a former Marine Corps officer, I had the opportunity to work with several gay people, in both the enlisted and officer ranks. It is my sense that most people in the military do not care if someone is gay, do not fear gay people, and do not mind working alongside them. But once they are forced to accept and in many ways revere the gay lifestyle, there will be significant morale and discipline problems.

Again, for those of you who know, disrupting "good order and discipline" is an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Prosecutions under this offense is the catch-all that could flood the military justice system, both for those refusing to act like they support the repeal, and for those who decide to test their new found freedom. For those of you who don't know, maintaining good order and discipline is kinda important in the military. Repealing DADT, without further plans, will not contribute positively to a military that is being asked to succeed under some of the most extraordinary circumstances we've seen in a long time.

Why is there such a belief, that everyone is dying to tell all their innermost personal thoughts? I hate that our culture is now built on the belief that everyone has to "tell-all." Recently a question was posted here as to whether Tiger's wife Elin should take a boatload of money, but agree not to talk. If she wants to talk, fine, but who says she wants to talk in the first place? Doesn't anyone value privacy anymore? What if gays in the military DON'T want to advertise their private life? Will they be forced to spill it, now that they won't be punished? Wouldn't it be a requirement to tell since rooming situations would be dependent now on sexual orientation? So could their privacy as well as heterosexuals' privacy be under assault? Could this repealing of DADT hurt gays more than help? I am sure there are at least a few who like to go to work each day, concentrate on their job, and keep their private lives to themselves.

And just to correct a little something - you cannot be discharged for letting something slip if you are simply acknowledging your sexual orientation. It must also be shown that you have engaged in, or intend to engage in homosexual acts, like sodomy, and guess what that's an offense in the UCMJ too! Just to be fair, it's also applicable to heterosexuals.

You can say that's outdated, but the bottom line is, the military has special rules, for specific reasons. If you want to change those rules because you think the military life should be more like civilian life, then you will fundamentally alter the ability of our military to carry out its mission. So yes, this is much bigger than just trying to figure out where everyone's going to sleep. It goes to the heart of our national security; denying that it does shows how little is understood about those people who have volunteered, who put their lives on the line, so that you can live freely in the greatest country in the world.

@GMay - right on! I've heard that conversation so many times I've lost count!

Roger J - I think you misunderstood my point. Perhaps I was being too elliptical.

If the military goes along with this, they will eventually have to prosecute somebody for violating the civil rights of another man/woman in uniform. If they decide to prosecute someone, they will not prosecute a Muslim much like they didn't prosecute Major Hasan. This, despite the fact that many Muslims tend to be far more verbose in their belief that gays just don't belong among the living.

They will instead prosecute a Christian, probably from the South because it plays better on TV. "See, we hunted down the right-wingers who, in a bunk conversation with fellow soliders suggested that the Bible tells him that gays are sinful!"

Jenner said: "most people in the military do not care if someone is gay, do not fear gay people, and do not mind working alongside them. But once they are forced to accept and in many ways revere the gay lifestyle, there will be significant morale and discipline problems."

I don't get it.

You knew that some of your fellow Marines were gay; and you were able to work with them. But if they openly admitted that they were gay, because there was no more DADT, then this would change things?

Having looked at the comments, I have to agree with the former military posters who have pointed out the coming cluster-formation that will be the result of repealing DADT. If it is done without changing the UCMJ to allow homosexual acts, there will be a huge problem in that a troop could be openly gay, but subject to Article 15 actions.

Then there is the whole problem of quarters, dependants, Commisary and PX privileges and medical care.

That will be followed by the charges of favortism, and sexual harassment from doth sides. And the resultant sensitivity classes. I'd be surprised if there would be any REAL army training for at least 6 months.

By the way, as for the current troops viewpoint, I can only relate that according to my son, who ETS'd two months ago, that everyone he knew was against resinding DADT.

"So I sort of doubt that quartering gay men with hetero men will cause them to start fucking like bunnies (which would happen were you to berth hetero men with hetero women)."

My post up top was mainly meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but there is some truth to it.

You could put many hetero men and women in the same room and they're not going to start fucking like rabbits, but that doesn't really mean they're still comfortable sharing living arrangements. Nor should they be if they don't want to.

Like my post said up top, as a Commander, my SNCOs and I have better things to do than to figure out who's ok with sharing close living quarters with someone who might find them sexually attractive. Go ahead and tell a woman she has to room with a man. Then think of why that is unacceptable.

"And I don't see how reducing the size of the pool from which our military can recruit, by excluding gays, would in any way enhance preparedness."

Excluding gays from military service is in no way whatsoever diminishing our military's readiness. There's no shortage of qualified heterosexual applicants from which to recruit. Especially in this economy.

opfor311 brings up a legal/practical point that most hear--and most in Congress as well--overlook. Unless the UCMJ is ALSO changed, homosexual acts will STILL be illegal. And good luck getting the UCMJ itself changed in the current atmosphere. Failure to do so will, as opfor311 points out, cause MAJOR legal problems not only for homosexuals but for the entire command structure--taking time and attention away from matters that more directly involve readiness and training.

Recruiting, training, and the conduct of military operations are difficult enough without adding to the complexity--why should we want to?

And the supposed more *relaxed* attitude of the younger soldiers toward gays is based on experience under DADT ONLY. Wait until homosexuals begin making demands under open legalization and sensitive seminars are required as PC acceptance is rammed down their throats (pun intended) as gay rights become officially championed as they inevitably will;

@Pastafarian-You said:"You knew that some of your fellow Marines were gay; and you were able to work with them."

It's because I didn't ask, and they didn't tell.

I can't speak for gays, but the ones I knew in the military seemed more concerned about doing well in their jobs than living an openly gay life. There are a lot of other things to talk about.

I quite acknowledge that asking people to keep something private, and in some cases this feels like pressure to lie, isn't a comfortable solution. But in the military sometimes personal desires must subordinate to what is good for the unit.

I should also add that statistics on agressive unwanted gay & lesbian advances on "straights" are VASTLY under-reported in the armed services. There are several reasons for this: First, young female recruits in training--the most numerous targets of unwanted advances--are loath to report such experiences as they are usually made by senior female NCOs who control and have total power over their lives in training.

Second, Commanders at all levels have every incentive to hide such reports/statistics--as their very existence is officially seen as a poor reflection on their ability to exercise control and good order and can hinder their own promotion.

Next--especially among the officer corps--the objects of ^unwanted* attention are loath to report such things to their commanders. As these things usually boil down to a "he said-he said" sort of thing, the attitude of most commanders is to say "A pox on both your houses" for saddling me with this problem and separate them both from the service, charging the aggrieved party with "conduct un-becoming" for having the *bad judgment* to allow himself/herself to get in such a position in the first place. Thealternative,unfortunately, is to maintain silence and live with the shame and disgust.

NO serving officer, NCO or enlisted member should have to be exposed to such dilemmas. They have a RIGHT to expect not to..

Why do we even want to talk about the military "in an idyllic world"? In an idyllic world we don't need one. But this is not an idyllic world and that is why it's not useful to frame *anything* in terms of how the world would be if it only it was idyllic.

Is any issue--legal, political, social, economic--productively addressed by comparing it to its idyllic state? Fascists like to talk about the world in its idyllic state.

Was the military idyllic before women were allowed in? Was it perfect then? It's just been one slow decline ever since, with the Negroes, and now soon the homosexuals? Golly! How much more strain can the poor military take?

The military serves many social functions and always has. For one thing, it soaks up a lot of people who have nothing to do with themselves after high school (and it seems worthwhile to have just for that function alone). It's a path to citizenship. It's a lifeline for anyone who wants tuition assistance.

The military is a lot more than protecting and defending; it will adapt to the presence of non-lying homosexuals.

Jake, the morally superior asserter of facts, insists--and brooks no contradiction because to disagree makes you a racist bigot--that racial identity and sexual identity do not involve differences that are meaningful.

So do explain this, Jake: how being whatever race--or interesting mixture of races--is not in any meaningful way different from being gay or straight?

I mean, we're dumb bigots, so we need morally superior people like you to explain...

Since people of different races come together and have children, producing interesting, mixed-race children, is that what happens if a gay man and a heterosexual woman have children? Their children are bisexual?

So if someone bisexual has children with someone heterosexual, the offspring will be mostly heterosexual?

I would never have thought it works that way--but you are smarter and morally superior, and I'm a dumb racist bigot, according to you, so you explain it...

Because you asserted something most people who thought they were bright knew to be nonsense: that racial identity and sexual identity are not meaningfully different realities.

So explain why they're just the same, since that's your assertion and you're morally superior to us racist bigots.

Point granted. No one really speaks (shouts?) for me. I wanted to support his first salvo, but since then I think he's getting a little carried away. To quote the Progressive Insurance girl, "Happens to me all the time."

MayBee - "And the policy is supposed to be no fraternization. Period.So if a woman feels she's being hit on by a man or a woman, she should be able to report them. Same with men."

I don't think you understand military fraternization rules. They only come up as a tool of enforcing good order and discipline. You can hit on any woman you want, just as long as it isn't a superior or subordinate in your chain of command and you can do that too, as long as you accept some risk if the relationship goes bad then vindictive or others see favortism..If the attention is unwanted, and the hitting on becomes harassment, THEN it gets reported.Even officer-enlisted is OK to most. Overseas, a sargeant I had made sort of a speciality of dating ugly AF nurses at the same base.

Homosexuality makes it more complicated. While I had one gay guy on my team and one who 95% likely was but gave not one solid indicator he was in 18 months and who claimed a GF back home - they worked well on the team. I would clearly prefer such guys to a dealing with the many, many headaches a problem woman would have cause.But even so, another sort of open gay hitting on guys he knew were straight would be a serious problem. A straight man hitting on a girl does not challenge her identity, sexuality, even morals. BUt a gay hitting on a straight does challenge, and may provoke a strong defensive reaction.There is also the issue of comradery - both gay guys on my team were tolerated - but excluded in much of the "bonding" and good overtures the more open gay guy made to just do some normal things as a pal - fishing, a tour to see some ruins - were rebuffed.

Holy cow, Americans are almost uniquely crazy about this. Look, of the 26 countries in NATO, 20 allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. Canada has done so since 1992. Gay soldiers in Canada actually have the right to be married on base (since 2005). (And for the record, gays are not segregated in barracks or otherwise. Members simply have to deal with bunking together, and they do.)

Gays and lesbians can serve openly in Israel, and some prominent commanders are openly gay. Britain, which opened up to gays in 2000, reports there have been no cases of harassment resulting from gays serving openly.

And you know what? These armies have not collapsed. Predicted social upheaval largely failed to materialize.

It defies logic that the US will be the exception here. They sky will not fall, the military will not become pink overnight, unit cohesion will remain intact, as it has EVERYHERE else.

I never said that they were exactly the same in all meaningful ways. But they are important in ways that matter when it comes to discrimination and the trajectory towards freedom that enlightened societies like ours have been on. (Now I realize that you and your organization have had a rough relationship with the Enlightenment going back centuries now. :)

There is no doubt that many non-enlightened countries (many of them not in the West) and organizations (most of them religious orders) have been fighting getting rid of these ancient hatreds. But luckily we live in an advance and open society were people can look at empirical evidence and rationally make good and enlightened judgments. Most people through out the West have gay and lesbian friends and family who do live openly. The judgment that is now almost universal (it has been in Europe for awhile now) is that denying equality to gays and lesbians was rooted in ancient prejudices and we have advance beyond that now. That seems like a good thing. After all we stopped riding around in a horse and buggy over a century now.

Why do you want to throw your lot with those stuck in the middle ages or areas of the world that missed the urges of the Enlightenment? Fr. Martin EMBRACE FREEDOM and EQUALITY! It is not so bad!

Ginna wrote "Gays and lesbians can serve openly in Israel, and some prominent commanders are openly gay. Britain, which opened up to gays in 2000, reports there have been no cases of harassment resulting from gays serving openly."

Gotta say, Jake--It seems to me you are using some very Eurocentric historiographic terminology when you talk about dark and middle ages. I would assume you are western civ dude rather than a world civ dude from the use of those terms.

Jake: "Ten years from now the American people with find a military and society were gays are afforded the full rights shared by their fellow citizens. We will be a better country for this."

I think that the fundamental element that is missing here is... when you join the military you give up a whole lot of the rights a civilian expects.

Now, generally, it's not too hard to deal with that and generally a person is motivated and after all, you've volunteered for it. But bottom line is that you've forfeited a good swath of your rights when you sign. This is true of every single person, not just some special sub-group.

So when you say that this is a "Rights" issue and that gays should have the "full rights" of everyone else in the military it embeds a certain disconnect from reality for me.

Now, I do think that gays should be accommodated in the military. But rights? That's nonsense talk. This is the military... you don't even have the "right" to decide where you will live or go for entertainment or how far you'll travel on a weekend or holiday when you're off work. Probably you won't come up against those limits, but the base commander or anyone else doesn't have to ask your permission to impose those limits on your off-hours.

Because this is true, it's a real thing that what doesn't seem like it ought to matter to anyone else very likely will impose upon them without their permission. Because that's the nature of the military.

Joan, I'm not sure I understand your point here. All the previous comments have been predictions of problems at a unit level. Quartering gay soldiers, unit cohesion etc. And now you are suggesting the problem would be....scale? What?

America's military is larger, so therefore including out homosexuals at a unit level is harder? That frankly makes no sense.

Each military unit, or ship, or submarine etc. is its own individual world. There will be problems with unit solidarity and cohesion or there won't, but how many units there are seems irrelevant to the discussion.

To be honest, I find this whole discussion rather quaint. I joined the Canadian army in 1994. There were a few out soldiers then, and more now as far as I know. (My much younger step-brother was born in 1992. When he joined the army in 2009 gays had been allowed to serve openly his entire life.)

I have been out of the army for many years, but I still have friends serving. Even in Kandahar, there are gays openly serving. Even married ones! Yes, there are still some people who have problems with it, but they are firmly in the minority. Mostly it's a non-issue.

"Ginna, how big are the armies of Israel, Great Britain, and Canada? How many air craft carriers do they have? How big are their navies, their air forces? I've heard this "other militaries allow gays to serve openly" fact before, but I'm inclined to believe it's apples and oranges. Their militaries are tiny compared to ours. We police the entire damn world, what do they do? Not much."

It's size, I think. It's also mission.

Does the Israeli army deploy? How far is a member of the Israeli military from their home, their *own* home, at any moment? What does Israeli military housing look like? Are there limits to assignments for gays in the Israeli military?

Same questions for Canada and England.

I don't know the answers to those questions and I'm confident that anyone who brings those militaries as some sort of proof that all is well hasn't even asked those questions.

"America's military is larger, so therefore including out homosexuals at a unit level is harder? That frankly makes no sense.

Each military unit, or ship, or submarine etc. is its own individual world. There will be problems with unit solidarity and cohesion or there won't, but how many units there are seems irrelevant to the discussion."

That's because you've never walked into the personnel office and tried to do anything.

Other militaries, my impression is, are... looser... in a lot of ways than the US active forces. And why not? In the US the National Guard is a whole lot more relaxed as well. There is more flexibility and a whole lot more room for command to make exceptions and accommodations. There's a lot more room for individual discretion.

In order to function well at the scale that the US active forces function at the increased uniformity and corresponding reduction in individual discretion and wiggle-room is necessary. And they do function *well*.

What size might help the US military do, is once they *ask* and a gay person *declares* there will be more room to assign those people to bases large enough to accommodate *uniformly* their needs.

Synova said "Does the Israeli army deploy? How far is a member of the Israeli military from their home, their *own* home, at any moment? What does Israeli military housing look like? Are there limits to assignments for gays in the Israeli military?

Same questions for Canada and England."

Well, I don't know about the IDF, except I know there are no limits to assignments. As for deployments, there are Canadian and British solders (yes! even gay ones!) deployed to Afghanistan right now, and have been since 2002. Canadian deployments are 6 months. Is that far enough? Long enough?

In Canada, sexual orientation does not change quartering decisions. No idea about Britain but I suspect that's true. Men bunk with men and are expected to get along. So far as I know, unwanted sexual advances have not particularly increased since 1992.

It seems you and Joan and the other commenters have convinced yourselves that the American military is unique among armed services. I am obviously not going to disabuse you of that notion. To me, arguing that the IDF is insufficiently badass is hilarious, but obviously you don't see it that way. And believe me, every armed force that has integrated gays went through the same process. The Canadian military fought the inclusion of open homosexuals all the way to the Supreme Court, making all the arguments you are making now. And most of the brass genuinely believed the worst would occur. It didn't. Nor did it occur in Israel, or the UK, or New Zealand, or Australia, or Germany, or Austria, or Russia(!), or Columbia, etc.

You will continue to put forth reasons why the US Military is different in some way from other western professional armed forces which have successfully integrated gays. That of course is your right, but I will be happy to have this discussion again in a year or two when the sky has failed to fall.

"Does this apply to African Americans and Jews? How about Muslims? Is there anyone else you would like to discriminate against?"

It applies to everyone. Weren't you listening? It applies to every single person who enlists. They all, every single one of them, give up a whole nice block of freedom and rights for the privilege of serving and there are any number of purely arbitrary reasons that they can be refused.

You insist on relating this to racial or religious discrimination because it serves your purposes to do so. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that when you do so it falls on my ears like an alternate reality. No one has a right to serve, no one at all.

Probably women shouldn't be allowed to serve, strictly speaking.

But I think that women like myself bring enough to make the hassle worth-while and I think that there isn't any reason not to have homosexuals openly serving. But you aren't ever going to hear me argue that women have some sort of "right" to any job they are physically capable of doing in the military. They just don't. There is no place where rights come into the discussion.

This isn't a case where some people have a "right" and some people are denied a "right."

And if you don't GET that, I sure don't want you serving next to me in any sort of situation that matters. (Not that this is an issue since my service was a long time ago.) I don't care who you sleep with, but someone without their priorities straight combined with war or disaster or emergency response is only funny on television.

"I will be happy to have this discussion again in a year or two when the sky has failed to fall."

Sure.

Just, for the record... my prediction is that the sky will not fall, homosexuals will serve openly with few problems, but that they will find that previous opportunities will no longer be available as gay service members come under similar limitations on what they can do and where they can be that women now are limited by.

And I predict that just the same way that DADT was supposed to be a pro-gay solution and turned into a rally cry for gay rights, that the new policies will be seen within the next 10 years to be oppressive and become the new example of violation of rights to rally against.

One difference that you have between the United States military and other countries militaries is that ours is totally voluntary. Nearly all of the militaries in Europe are draftees, as is the Israeli, and I believe the Canadians are also drafted. Their societies are also more given to obeying authority than ours.

The Dutch military is unionized, and your shop steward can file grievences if you have a problem with your chain of command.

In the British army, you join a regiment that you will serve the rest of your career with. In our army, personnel are rotated about every three years, so there is always changes in unit personnel.

Bottom line: it is NOT possible to draw any conclusions on the effects of changes in the US Military by what happens with other countries militaries.

Synova wrote "You insist on relating this to racial or religious discrimination because it serves your purposes to do so. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that when you do so it falls on my ears like an alternate reality. No one has a right to serve, no one at all."

Try denying entry based on race or religious grounds. You would quickly find out that there is a right to serve. It would not even have to go to the Surpreme Court.

Synova, just to clarify, your argument against repealing DADT is that it would make out members hard to post? Somewhere? That they would walk into this Personnel Office and...? I'm not seeing the consequence here. The whole point is that discriminating against known gay personnel because they are known to be gay would be against regs. Are you suggesting that's impossible? That career managers (or whatever you call them) would not follow the regs? Or that units would reject known gays from being posted, and not be reprimanded? Frankly I would think the tightness of the US Military and adherence to regs would actually help that situation.

Or are you suggesting that it would be harder to be gay and away from home? Or harder for straight unit members to deal with gays on deployment rather than at home? I'm honestly mystified why it would be harder to have gay personnel deployed.

You are making that distinction, that the US Military deploys all over the world, and I am genuinely not getting why that is necessarily harder with out gay personnel.

Problems with unit cohesion and leadership are undeniably magnified by foreign deployments (believe me, I know), but they certainly already exist back home.

I would like to end this thread by saying THANK YOU Democrats for fighting for reason and principle. The Democratic Party hopefully will be in the long run rewarded for standing up for equality and what is right.

One difference that you have between the United States military and other countries militaries is that ours is totally voluntary. Nearly all of the militaries in Europe are draftees, as is the Israeli, and I believe the Canadians are also drafted. Their societies are also more given to obeying authority than ours.

Ha! Thank you, that was hilarious. Seriously, Canada and the UK (and most commonwealth nations, eg. Australia and New Zealand) have never had mandatory military service. Also, the idea that we are more given to obeying authority - comedy gold!

In the British army, you join a regiment that you will serve the rest of your career with. In our army, personnel are rotated about every three years, so there is always changes in unit personnel.

Um, what? I can assure you that a) joining a regiment does not mean you have the same unit for life, and b) does not mean you are deployed in the same place for life.

There is NO right to serve. The military can discriminate on several grounds already, such as health, mental condition, arrest record, ability to read and write, not being able to speak English, and currently explicit sexual orientation. No one that fits into any of those conditions can demand their 'right' to enlist. The military can also refuse to take certain individuals based on 'religious' grounds such as being the member of a sect that cannot violate certain religious teachings (i.e., Conscientious objectors, and those who must wear certain itens at all times like a yamaka). In fact, I've never heard of a case in which anyone ever was able to force the military to enlist them.

Jake: Perhaps the Democrats can take up the issue of the tattoo policy of the various armed services. It appears that there is discrimination against the tattoo and piercing "community" which requires addressing. Like right this minute. One more example of the fascist nation you inhabit, one more instance of the civil rights of "the other" being squashed.

If I appear to be arguing against repealing DADT it is only because people are making assumptions about what will replace it and I think, I really do, that what replaces it will end up being more limiting, not less.

And really... how can it possibly be possible that the military could limit assignments according to sexual preference? Hello? They do it on the basis of sex all the time.

As several people have said... Don't Care, Do Your Job, is what we ought to be shooting for, or my favorite, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Care.

But anyone who thinks that is what is going to *happen* just hasn't thought it through past "DADT is bad and if the bad thing goes away it will not be bad anymore."

"Now I realize that you and your organization have had a rough relationship with the Enlightenment going back centuries now. :)"

Condescending claptrap. Try making your argumentation without it sometime.

Moreover, neither I nor the Catholic Church--which pretty much midwifed Western Civilization, drawing from Greek and Roman traditions, as well as the Bible, with Christendom inventing the university and the scientific method, as well as most everything you take for granted, need no lectures on "enlightenment" from you.

"Empirical evidence. How non-Middle Ages of you!"

Not only condescending, but embarrassingly ignorant as well.

Let's see: have heard of Aristotle? Good. Do you know who took the thought of Aristotle and built both a philosophy and a theology from his work? So influential was that man's work that it became the foundation of the Catholic Church's whole method right down to the present day? Some know-nothing called Thomas Aquinas.

Oh, and you do know that Aristotle was all about observation and analysis of facts?

Oh, and one more thing: do you happen to know who it was that copied out all those writings of Aristotle, Plato, and who knows who else, ensuring that their works could be known and drawn upon in the present day?

Why, it was those poor, benighted monks of the anti-science, anti-knowledge Catholic Church (cue "boo track").

"The whole point is that discriminating against known gay personnel because they are known to be gay would be against regs. "

See, this is an assumption about regulations. Taking away DADT doesn't create regulations that must be followed, but certainly regulations that must be followed will be created.

People are making assumptions that "don't ask" can be repealed without being replaced by "ask" or that "don't tell" will be replaced by something other than "tell". If Congress so much as makes a rule that when possible housing preferences have to be followed the "tell" will become mandatory.

I guess that for you that time must have began after the Second World War, since during World War II, the UK even drafted women (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription for reference). Also there is a book by Roger Broad entitled "Conscription in Britain, 1939-1964: the militarisation of a generation". While you are correct that these countries do not have conscription today, it is even more of a laugher to insist that they NEVER had conscription.

As far as your contention that the Commenwealth countries do not have a greater resepect for authority than the U.S., let's talk about the concepts of private property (such as having to get a government permit to cut down a tree on one's own property, as happens in Britian today). To an American, that's Comedy gold.

As for joining a regiment in Britian, it does mean that you stay within the same unit unless you request reassignment. And if the unit is moved from one location to another in a PCS, the whole unit moves.

But my point is still true. When it comes to comparing the US Military to those in other countries, "Your milage may vary".

Ok Synova, sorry if I assumed you were arguing against the repeal of DADT. You said:If I appear to be arguing against repealing DADT it is only because people are making assumptions about what will replace it and I think, I really do, that what replaces it will end up being more limiting, not less.

And really... how can it possibly be possible that the military could limit assignments according to sexual preference? Hello? They do it on the basis of sex all the time.

Hmm. I don't understand how this follows. Can I establish some basic points of understanding?

1) Discrimination by sex is usually for one or both of two reasons. a) The military occupation requires physical skills outside the abilities of most if not all women, and b) the deployment environment cannot be modified to support facilities for women (e.g. separate showers on submarines.)

2) Closeted gays are probably already serving in all US military occupations.

I think from what you've written that we agree that both points are true. So the question is, how does the repeal of DADT change the situation?

It seems like you are stating that closeted gays will, if they choose to come out, effectively be treated like women. Or not even women, since you can't put gay men in the women's showers.

The first discrimination reason, physical capability, will not be used. There is no evidence that gay men have a reduced physical capability, and in any case existing personnel will have proven they can already do the job.

So your concern then seems to hinge on b), the establishment of separate facilities for gays.

As I've mentioned before, so far as I know, none of the militaries that allow gays to serve openly accommodate separate facilities. All men, gay and straight, share the same quarters and facilites, and the same is true for women.

So you believe that the US Military will take a different path? That allowing gays to serve openly if they choose will force units to treat them as if they were a third sex? (Or third and fourth sex?)

This hasn't happened in any professional military in the western world. Maybe you will prove to be right, but I suspect the change will be less significant than you think.

Most gays will still not live very openly, but they may choose to come out to selected friends, secure in the knowledge that they cannot be summarily dismissed for their sexual orientation.

"Problems with unit cohesion and leadership are undeniably magnified by foreign deployments (believe me, I know), but they certainly already exist back home."

The consequences are negligible at home.

But I don't see a unit cohesion or leadership problem. I see someone deciding that the way to accommodate privacy concerns is to keep those concerns stationed in places with additional facilities.

And I see a whole lot of people being shocked when that happens and then Jake's valorious Democrats are going to say, hey, not our fault, we repealed DADT, blame the military, and everyone will because that's what they like to do.

"So you believe that the US Military will take a different path? That allowing gays to serve openly if they choose will force units to treat them as if they were a third sex? (Or third and fourth sex?) "

Yes.

Not that units will be forced by necessity at the unit level, but you know, Congress is involved. Any time Congress is involved they try to over manage and they are idiots.

Opfor311, you are correct that the UK briefly had conscription in wartime. (Canada actually passed a highly contentious law, but ultimately no one was actually conscripted.) However, if I clarify to state that permanent conscription has never been implemented in commonwealth countries, I think we can agree. The US has had mandatory military service far more recently than any of the commonwealth nations you mention.

As to the second point, I remain unclear as what that has to do with service of open homosexuals?

If I can paraphrase your statement, the soldiers in other countries respect authority better, so of course they tolerate homosexuality.

Are you stating that US military discipline isn't up to working with gays? Because frankly I don't believe that.

What I meant in my second point was that one cannot compare apples and oranges. Just because other countries have adjusted well to having homosexuals serving openly, one can not assume that it will happen as well with the US. The cultures in the countries, and it their militaries are different.

It is clear that merely repealing DADT will not work well. Unless the US Government considers carefully how to implement the changes that will be required in the UCMJ, Federal Law (the Defense of Marriage act for one), Local and State laws (since many states have constitutional restrictions on marriage), as well as matters of privileges for dependants, and deployablility (since there is a higher rate of hepititis and AIDS among male homosexuals, they may be limited to stateside only assignments).

It is not as simplistic a matter as most posters here believe (and Members of Congress as well).

Friar Fox wrote "Moreover, neither I nor the Catholic Church--which pretty much midwifed Western Civilization,..."

Gibbon's in "decline and Fall..." would find some ironic humor in this assertion. Please read some of his discursive footnotes about The Church role in this. He can be quite humorous about a thousand years of progress being lost.

Oh, I wish I could also pull Galileo out of the crowd as Woody Allen did with Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall. When did the church decide to acknowledge being "partially" incorrect for declaring him a heretic for arguing that the earth revolves around the sun? 1992 right?

Like all big bureaucracies The Church gets some things right. Being leaders in bring about enlightened social change? Not so much.

Friar Fox, sorry to be down on the corporation you work for but as another great Catholic, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

The Church continues to be three hundred years behind enlightened thought. We will be long gone when the last remnants of the church acknowledges that maybe they got the gay thing wrong.

I was under the impression that gays in the military in Israel could be / were (?) in segregated living situations. I cannot find a reference to that in a quick google search. I did find reference to the fact that many gay Israeli soldiers do not disclose that to their fellow servicemen.

I did find mention that homosexual Israeli soldiers could request to shower alone.

There is a point to mention that many countries in the world are the same size (populations as well as area) as some of our states.

The difference in size, scale and in deployment times and places might be something which needs to be considered.

I wonder if someone here can tell me how repeal of DADT *benefits* gays?

It seems to me that repeal makes them worse off by far.

I just skimmed HR 5136, the Defense Appropriations Bill. There is nothing in ther one way or the other about DADT. The repeal of DADT is in Amendment H.Amdt 672 which you can read here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:19:./temp/~bdi3s0::

As far as I can tell, while this does eliminate DADT, it does nothing to to change the underlying law. See 10 USC Section 654

(b) Policy. - A member of the armed forces shall be separatedfrom the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretaryof Defense if one or more of the following findings is made andapproved in accordance with procedures set forth in suchregulations:(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, orsolicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/37/654

The underlying law REQUIRES gays to be discharged from the military. There are one or two very narrow exceptions but other than that it gives the military no options at all. They MUST discharge all homosexuals.

DADT gave commanders some discretion about enforcing the law. Now that discretion has been taken away.

I really do need someone to tell me how this makes gays in the military better off.

I must be missing something. Is there something buried in HR 5136 repealing the law that I could not find?

The Amendment is about 6 line long, I don't see anything in there, either.

Dear Father Fox, as you must know Thomas was official condemned by the church during his life time.

Yes, I know that Thomas tried to reconcile church theology with classical philosophical thought. I will leave it to others who are much smarter than myself to judge how successful he was. I do know that reading "Aristotle" and "theology" in the same sentence is a little jarring.

It is interesting to note that Classical Thought remains more relevant today than ever. But even you have to admit that the influence of the church has been on the wane. In Europe it has almost been reduced to just a collection of old buildings and as an attraction to attract tourist dollars. Sort of like the monarchy.

Mr. Fox I do appreciate your good humor and fidelity to the institution. I know of several priest and nuns who truly do god's work. To that degree I do appreciate the church.

"Dear Father Fox, as you must know Thomas was official condemned by the church during his life time."

Citation?

As astoundingly brilliant as you undoubtedly are, you are not entitled to cite yourself as a source.

Although Thomas Aquinas had contemporary critics, he and his work were very highly regarded his entire life.

Actually, what happened was at least twice a bishop condemned a number of propositions associated with Thomas; the first time, this was followed by open debate of the propositions at the University of Paris (oh how repressive of free thought!); the second condemnation came near the end of his life; again by a specific bishop. I realize you may not know the difference between a specific bishop, and the entire Church. You might want to look that up too.

Fifty years after Thomas died, the Church formally declared him a saint.

What's more, Thomas composed the liturgy for the feast promulgated for the entire Church, Corpus Christi ("Body of Christ," in Latin), which is still used today.

Would you think it likely that someone "condemned" would be chosen to do such a thing?

all of those in favor of openly serving gays should say that if recruiting and retention decrease significantly, they will sign up for the national defense and for their diehard belief in nondiscrimination....Yea, right Ha Ha

Jake, are you going to sign up if recruiting and retention go down due to the repeal of DADT? Are you going to encourage your children and those young people in your orbit to sign up? I think these are relevant questions since no one, none of us can predict the future. It matters not what the commonwealth countries have done or the Dutch military either...since we dont know,Are you going to put some skin in the game?

Fr. Martin Fox, there is no doubt that you are more of a Thomist than I. Thank you for championing a more enlightened church.

Sean, did your grand pappy make the same appeal when they integrated the military fifty years ago?

Is it not asking a lot of people who are fighting to end discrimination and increase freedom to bear the burden (though probably none here) of counteracting the action of those who desire to remain bigoted?

Jake Said "Sean, did your grand pappy make the same appeal when they integrated the military fifty years ago?"

Sean: Jake, please answer the question posed. In 1948, when we integrated the military, there was a draft. If you did not notice, we no longer have a draft. And oh, you are speaking to a 3 combat tour veteran with 2 Bronze stars who supported and commanded when DADT came out. I do not consider myself bigoted in the least.

Since you are so committed to this lets look at the potential problem. Potentially significant recruiting and retention problems. SOOOO, are you willing to sign up, have your children sign up and ask those young people in your orbit to sign up to defend your beliefs?

"Sean, did your grand pappy make the same appeal when they integrated the military fifty years ago?"

At least some of the loudest feminist voices pushing for integration of women in the military were speaking from an ideological anti-military standpoint rather than a pro-military one. They had an agenda of "equal rights" and didn't care what they broke in service to that agenda. That the military did not break is irrelevant to their motivations.

So I think it's a fair question.

On a personal level, do you feel military service is worthy and valuable and do you encourage young people of your acquaintance to consider a term of enlistment as something that will enrich their life experience?

The thing of it is... just like those "wars are masculine" feminists of past years demanding that women serve equally in combat and everything else, the larger part of those demanding the end to DADT disparage military service, think it's a waste if a person has other options (a person who qualifies for military service at all always has other options), that those in the military are violent, unthinking or dull, or even can look at someone as accomplished as General Petraeus and see a dishonorable drone.

Young people have a relatively narrow window of opportunity to serve, providing they qualify physically and otherwise. It's something that can't really be understood except from the inside. The experience itself is different enough from anything else that it's worth it just for that, just for the people you'll meet and work with and the right to be able to say you did it.

Jake, as you talk of your moral superiority, please remember that to actually have a belief, a true belief, well, that requires sacrifice. I did notice that you were asking more of those in uniform that are already sacrificing more than you could imagine with multiple tours away from family and friends for a year or 15 months in a combat zone repeatedly over the course of last years

As Jake said: "Is it not asking a lot of people who are fighting to end discrimination and increase freedom to bear the burden (though probably none here) of counteracting the action of those who desire to remain bigoted?"

Well, Jake you might be right, it might not be too much to ask that also with everything else you are asking of them and their families and their children...but what if, as free human beings, who desire to do something else with their lives, maybe study St Thomas Acquinas at Notre Dame...maybe with the GI Bill...maybe these individuals on their 4th tour say "just say call me a homophobe and I am getting out"...how about if that is 30% of the force? How about if recruiting declines the same amount? These amounts, so you understand are catastrophic for the present day military.

I want to know specifically if you are going to sign up to fill the spot of these "homophobes" who decide to get out or not even consider coming in?

Have you ever looked at the names of the towns of the fallen? I do everyday...I notice that the overwhelming majority are from small towns...far away from the cosmopolitan elite...who of course think that gays serving openly is the obvious moral good...a belief one might say...but would they think that, if it required their children or even the Harvard Crimson editorial board to fill the slots because...say...a draft is needed to fill those spots left open from the great unwashed who do not feel as you do about the "oppression" and "discrimination" of DADT? they just do not want to deal with your social experimentation on top of the combat tours, constant moves, the inevitable classes about tolerance when they believe they should be training with say, weapons and tactics?

I dont know what the future holds...it could be peaches and cream and everyone will sing kumbaya...that is not the world I know for the last 47 years, almost 23 in uniform...but one thing that those years have taught me is that nothing goes as planned...and seemingly innocent things can have huge impacts...like making assumptions about Iraq and Afghanistan post invasion scenarios...

So Jake, I ask you one more time, are you willing to put some skin in the game?

Jake, glad to hear you will sign up...I will post on the Althouse board when the stats come out on recruiting and retention...Hopefully you are a real person with real beliefs and will follow your word with the honor your beliefs require. I for one am assuming that you will...I would assume you are for a draft if the worst happens?

Jake, I hope you don't have any trouble passing the physical and everything else. That would be disappointing. There are a lot of different options between the guard and reserve and four services and if you have a college degree, OTS. The Army will guarantee an initial assignment. The Air Force lets it be a surprise. The worst thing (for me) was the amount of time between enlisting and finally *finally* getting to go. Months!

First, how do you know I am not already a vet? Pretty presumptuous on your part. Do all vets wear it around town in such a flamboyant fashion?

Second, Sean writes "I did notice that you were asking more of those in uniform that are already sacrificing more than you could imagine with multiple tours away from family and friends for a year or 15 months in a combat zone repeatedly over the course of last years."

Sean, people sign up to be in the military just like people sign up to be firefighters and police. There is no draft. There has not been one in forty years. The difference is that an overwhelming number of Americans believe in the mission facing the police and firefighters. On the other hand many Americans, if not a majority, of all political stripes think the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a waste of our good tax money.

If you want to sign up for the job, get at it. But don't expect to be constantly pat on the back for your choice. And if you can't serve because there is some gay guy next to you, then you REALLY should find another line of work.

Synova wrote about serving in the military as being "that will enrich their life experience" and that "(t)he experience itself is different enough from anything else that it's worth it just for that, just for the people you'll meet and work with and the right to be able to say you did it."

It seems the difference to me is that I have build up a business employing dozens of people over the past couple of decades which involves paying a lot of taxes so I can fund YOUR CHOICE to go have a big adventure.

Many Americans, both conservative, libertarian and liberal are sick and tired of paying gobs of money so that we can be the world's police department.

Jake says: "If you want to sign up for the job, get at it. But don't expect to be constantly pat on the back for your choice. And if you can't serve because there is some gay guy next to you, then you REALLY should find another line of work."

Sean: Jake, that is the point I was making. They will find another line of work adn with that, destroy the effectiveness of the military we have today. Like another poster stated, I am not sure you think we should even have a military or one large enough to be an internationalist military.

That is a valid viewpoint from my chair. We become the pre WW II military and let the world do what the world will do...I thought we were both talking about having a military capable of our internationalist impulse such as Kosovo/Bosnia and to attack places like Afghanistan. You do not believe in that type of foreign policy...so if the military ends up being made ineffective through allowing gays to serve openly, it does not hurt your view of US foreign policy. Jake, I only pointed out my sevice based on your post earlier that was stating that no one on the board had service/or that is how I read it. I think starting a business is the engine that allows this country the funding to do what I think is necessary and moral throughout the world...so Thank You for starting a business and paying your taxes. I do not want to get patted on the back for my service...I have an Old Yankee aversion to that...I just want people to understand and respect the fact that although you may not be in favor of the war, you, as a citizen, sent those troops to war...and you must take responsibility for that. I assume you voted for Obama and if so, well he is responsible for the surge in Afghanistan.

I think that you're being unfair, Jason. There is a difference between a civilian and someone who has gone through training and acclimation. It could be that Jake would be a PITA but most likely he wouldn't be any more so than anyone else. Besides, the attitude, if he brought it with him would be for the NCO to deal with, not you. I don't see how he'd be any more annoying than a whole bunch of the people that I worked with.

Jake said: "Last time I checked the military was under civilian control."

The military is under civilian control, as that is essential in a democractic society such as ours. The Founders held this to be nonnegotiable when laying out the separation of powers in the Constitution. I happen to agree with the arrangement wholeheartedly.

Jake also said: "I have the best interests of the NATION in mind."

The interests of the NATION depend on national security. National security depends on a strong military. You are ignoring reality if you think you can maintain the rights and freedoms you have now without it.

To try to end the this tread on a positive note let me say that I have little doubt that our military attracts hard working and serious minded men and women who will do their best to make the ending of DADT a success no matter their personal feelings about the topic.